Pol Pot Thread

Unironically what did he do wrong? I used to think it was a meme that he was great but he is honestly came closer to Communism than any other previous society on Earth:

Inb4 “it’s utopian socialism reeeee”

Attached: 5470A082-7DCA-4D23-919A-16EE3C6CB355.jpeg (960x720, 111.25K)

Other urls found in this thread:


funded by the cia

Attached: megane.jpg (1280x720 666.57 KB, 259.96K)

>>>Zig Forums

Proofs or fuck off. Stop peddling lies you red liberal faggot.

This is said so many times yet no proof is ever offered. Why not just say he wasn't a Marxist? He obviously wasn't yet you Pol Pot-hating retards always go for the unproveable route.
Read the Black Papers. Pol Pot knew what was up with the Vietnamese and their aggressive ambitions in Indochina. He was proven right (again)

Glasses girls are the cutest!

Attached: virginchadtranshumanism.png (1400x650, 221.45K)


So you don't think destroying the MoP and killing intellectuals based on if they used glasses and how marked their hands were from working the land is retarded?

You can't have capitalism without the MoP
The towns were foreign-dominated centres of corruption and oppression full of alien influences. They were parasites plain and simple. The nation was (as it should have) identified with the Cambodian peasantry

And you can't have socialism without the MoP either. So then "Democratic" Kampuchea wasn't socialist.


Define what agrarian socialism is then.

The CIA did actually fund the resistance movement against the DRV that occupied Cambodia and Pol Pot was the leader of the resistance group. Aside from that he ran literal concentration camps, killed about 3 million people which was about 1/4 of the population. Pol Pot became so paranoid that near the end of his reign he killed off a vast amount of his inner party officials for expressing slight disagreements with him.

He appointed the former monarch as a figurehead head of state. And after the invasion he formed a provisional coalition government with liberals and monarchists.

Attached: 97818bd136bc7b0b084c76cb1fccc16f6af634c263e2672c9d695eceb8a93b99.jpg (1320x885 740.76 KB, 76.42K)

The point of communism is to liberate and support people. Improve their lives. Pol Pot did the exact opposite; he slaughtered a quarter of his population, gave half of those remaining mental scars (literally 50% of the people who lived through the Khmer Rouge have PTSD), and destroyed the education system, healthcare system, and more in ways that still haven't recovered to what they were in the 1960s.

Pol Pot was a monster. Supporting him is much more damaging to the left than denouncing him for what he was. If you think he was in any way good, you need a reality check. I'm on the left because I think it's a better system. He created a worse, hellish system; if you support Pol Pot's system, then you don't actually stand for anything other than depravity.


Sure, we believe your atrocity propaganda, of course. And he worked for CIA right?, so it all is US fault, right? Capitalism murders again.

surely you jest, as urbanite culture is full of money hungry degenerates anyways.

the former monarch was eastern bloc friendly thou.

I don't really know or care about that, but I lived in Cambodia for a little while, and the horrible impacts of the Khmer Rouge are painfully obvious. To be frank, I have no desire to go back there.

Nothing. He created a great primitive society free of the evils of

Yes, and Stalin killed 20 billion Ukranians

The impotent rage of the Marxist delivered towards Pol Pot and the achievements of Democratic Kampuchea (DK) is all from those who subconsciously realize that Pol Pot had implemented a superior system in DK which bypassed silly intellectual abstractions such as the "stages" supposedly required to reach the higher stage of socialism. Following April 17th, 1975 when Pol Pot and his comrades came to power there was an instant transition to the upper stage of socialism. All classes and social distinctions were eliminated, money was abolished and egalitarian communism was achieved. One may call Pol Pot's focus on the Kampuchean peasant "reactionary" but this is not an argument. The proletariat was not a significant force in DK and Pol Pot was forced to rely on the peasant as the center of DK unique revolutionary experience. The cities were rightfully identified as symbols of foreign domination, corruption and oppression, symbols of capitalism. Capitalism in Kampuchea was a regression and degradation of earlier conditions. Thus the Kampuchean peasant was a member of class which could be more closely identified with the nation, while the urbanites were contaminated by capitalism. By evacuating the cities Pol Pot helped usher in the instant elimination of classes following the revolution. The dismantling of DK economic infrastructure was to destroy capitalism. Agriculture was the way forward. Ironically enough, Pol Pot was right again in predicting the aggression of the Vietnamese and their earlier attempts to absorb and dominate Kampuchea through the Indochina Federation. DK had a unique revolutionary path unparalleled anywhere else on Earth.

Thread theme: hooktube.com/watch?v=647I3J_jTf8

Attached: pol pot.jpg (300x397, 20.37K)

That's not a good thing. Also massacring ethnic minorities associated with a socialist state is hardly "anti-imperialism" - it's ultranationalism.

Ultranationalism and anti-imperialism are not contradictory positions. Also, you’re likely referring to Vietnamese minorities. Implying that was not justified – they were politically unreliable

Imagine being this pathetically fucked in the head. Go outside. Socialize with real people. Stop being such an edgy dork. Zig Forums is the place for irrelevant, murderous opinions.

this thread is now about bespectacled Vietnamese girls reading

Attached: glasses.jpg (1600x1000 38.92 KB, 190.26K)

Then prove to me why it is wrong. If I was in control of a state I would no qualms using force against those would undermine the system. This has nothing to do with being edgy, it’s just something that sometimes needs to be done.
I already do but thanks for the advice

What would I prove wrong? In a sane debate, I'd argue that your brutal, authoritarian system kills people. But for you that's not a problem, you're taking the incredibly edgy, absurd stance that it's good to kill people. I have no interest in trying to prove to you that killing people is bad.

*I have no interest in trying to prove to you that committing genocide is bad.

Your moralizing is pretty pathetic, user. You can’t prove that killing people under certain circumstances is bad because there is no such thing as good and bad.
I haven’t taken this position simply to be edgy. I am simply stating what I believe and know to be true from my research.
Because you can’t. I don’t think killing for the sake of killing is a thing people should do, but there is nothing wrong with killing people and it’s moralfagging to argue otherwise.

You sound like an emotional child lashing out

Please take off your flag you spooked moralist.

Attached: 94c812d8973faa856455cb2aa53e431834df2a4202ab42503dc47e6dbe80532c.jpg (986x1300, 429.56K)

Look at this moralfag and laugh. The flag makes the irony so much more delicious. I’m not even a Pol Pot-ist and I think you’re a pathetic retard

Your position is absurd. You're literally pro-genocide. Please tell me about your extensive research. I've done development work in Phnom Penh, including for a Cambodian organization that gave aid to Montagnard communities (a marginalized Vietnamese minority seeking refuge in Cambodia). I'm also getting a master's in foreign policy. I'm not saying any of this to make an argument from authority, but simply to defend against your desire to dismiss my objection.

I want to hear the research you're talking about. This isn't just any "certain circumstance" - you're advocating for committing genocide against an entire ethnic group, rather than targeting saboteurs.

Also, the "moralfagging" move is moronic. Politics are about how you organize society. Society should serve the people's interests. There's inevitably a moral component to that, even if you're arguing for utilitarian moves that serve people better in the long term. It's a move pulled straight from the right wing playbook - the minute you start dismissing people for being "moral," is the minute you've pretty much admitted you're on the wrong side.

Because I'm against genocide? Really? Fuck off back to Zig Forums, you retard.

This is the most arrogant post I’ve read all day. Sorry, user, no one cares about your piece of paper saying you read some books and wrotes some papers or where you’ve taken a vacation to. Get off your high horse

I'm not on a high horse. Again, I mentioned it because the post I was replying to insinuated that I hadn't done the research he had.

You're just upset I'm against your position. You really belong on Zig Forums

The Soviet Union "genocided" Nazi Germany. Was that bad too?

Genocide can be justified and there’s nothing wrong with genocide on the face of it. You may call it edgy, but it’s true. You can tell us to fuck off all you want but it will not change the fact the fact that all you can do is squirm. Vietnamese minorities living in Kampuchea were obviously more likely to be politically unreliable than native Kampucheans. Vietnamese has expansionist ambitions in Indochina and the native Vietnamese would have been a natural fifth column

You're literally pro violence of peasants. It's hilarious how liberals only care about people when it's oppressors getting rekt.

Again, fuck off with your credentials
Not really, this is just an internet argument, there’s no reason to get that invested

No, they did not "genocide" Nazi Germany. You should look up what that word means. The Soviet Union did not target ethnically German people. It was right for the Soviets to fight the Nazis. However, it was wrong for the Soviets to target some of their own ethnic minorities. As I just explained, it's wrong to go after an entire ethnic group, rather than targeting the specific saboteurs.

He’s an obvious bourgie too. It all makes sense

Again, you're pro-murder. Have fun with that.

No, and this is just incoherent. A Vietnamese minority group are not the oppressors, even if some insurgents were funded by them. Go after the insurgents, not the families.

All you did was insult me a lot. Now you're whining I responded. You're literally retarded.

You act like it’s that easy to identify saboteurs, especially during war-time. The ends justify the means. The Kampucheans did nothing wrong in regards to Vietnamese minorities in the same way the Americans did nothing wrong in putting in Japanese in internment camps

You're spooked because "genocide" implies that the people killed played no role in the oppression of the peasants that over threw them.
You need to make an argument as to why that wasn't in the long term interests of peasants, which I think you can earnestly make.
The urbanites made their decision, and went along with status quo that violently menaced the peasantry with poverty. Their material interests lay with maintaining that status quo.
I'm not even pro Pol Pot but you are an embarrassing illiterate brainlet.

Just because I would not be opposed to killing people if needed to achieve my goals if I was in a position of state leadership does not mean I endorse senseless killing. Moralizing again

You're for killing an entire ethnic group. I'm not illiterate, and you're a nasty, retarded piece of shit for making that low blow. kys

And you're a punk that cries when the dog they've been teasing finally bite him.

Look at this privileged bourgie piece of shit and how spooked he is. All you’ve done is flail and refuse to address any of my arguments

Attached: AE682DDB-5E52-4D7A-A1EF-803182BCDAA3.jpeg (992x880, 167.12K)

You can't even keep all your spook straight.

Wow, Tumbr's really reaching for that brass ring on this one.

We were talking about a Vietnamese minority group. Keep up, kids.

Nice projection. I'm out, you win. Go ahead and be genocidal authoritarians. Have fun.

I will have fun. Too bad Pol Pot ushered in egalitarian communism though

Attached: meganee.jpg (740x1022 62.89 KB, 602.25K)

Why are you trying to derail this thread so hard? No one is going to get triggered over megane images

thanks for the (you) here have one back

Attached: meganeeee.jpg (708x1000 290.46 KB, 166.84K)

Irrelevant to the debate that I've given up on, but you don't know what the fuck a spook is. You're all for killing masses of people for some blind ideal, unable to comprehend what it actually means on any real level - you are very thoroughly spooked.

Interesting that these all come at the same time and stop at the same time. Are you one piece of shit pretending to be three pieces of shit?


Attached: 53DC87D1-F7F7-4094-A432-3CC0A5E93BEA.jpeg (1242x424, 106.62K)

Attached: 1492473837414.png (595x842 481.41 KB, 403.2K)

Attached: 1492481126730.png (1280x1232 267.05 KB, 295.96K)

Attached: 1492629506290.png (650x1200 121.54 KB, 469.8K)

Attached: 1492856169349.jpg (700x1000 73.85 KB, 356.62K)

Attached: 1493014486808.jpg (800x948 98.29 KB, 338.85K)

Attached: 1493298481347.jpg (1280x720 182.19 KB, 99.19K)

Attached: 1493891190084.jpg (750x788 442.13 KB, 187.88K)

Attached: 1494562579063.png (900x882 222.56 KB, 213.86K)

Attached: 1495177248921.jpg (1080x1080 243.13 KB, 657.8K)

Attached: 1495806377875.png (960x720 81.26 KB, 69.16K)

Attached: 1496023246325.jpg (2507x3541 251.77 KB, 977.23K)

Attached: 1496287413162-2.jpg (1061x1500 16.85 KB, 163.45K)

Attached: 1496287654120-2.png (1920x1080 902.89 KB, 264.16K)

Attached: 1496330338777.png (850x894 389.83 KB, 316.72K)

Attached: 1497299376676.jpg (1124x900 755.07 KB, 410.62K)

Attached: 1498138607991.jpg (500x700 383.1 KB, 46.66K)

Wow, it's just obvious. Your voice is the same in all these posts. You're so pathetically, hilariously insecure that you literally tried to make me think you were three people. You can have this debate, but you should literally kill yourself, you pathetic stooge

Whatever helps you sleep at night. You just can’t imagine people would disagree with you besides me. If you want to think I’m every person critical of you ITT, by all means go ahead

Right. I'm sure there's an army of Pol Pot sympathizers who all write the exact same way and organize to post at the exact same time. You fucking idiot.

Again, paranoia. I’m not going to argue over something this stupid so go kill yourself


lol interesting how the other two disappeared since I pointed out that you're samefagging, which is frankly the most pathetic tactic there is.

You support a guy who ravaged his own country in ways that it still hasn't recovered from. You demonstrably don't understand what a spook is. By your own admission you support ultranationalism and ethnic cleansing, so you're effectively a fascist. You're such a pathetic, worthless piece of shit it's hilarious. How are you going to get out of this one? Hint: the barrel of a shotgun is one option.

Actually, I'm sorry. We need to stop throwing around all this suicide talk. But I recommend you go visit Cambodia, learn about how oppressive the Khmer Rouge system was, and you know, actually try reading a book.

Good night, buddy.

primitive communism is not advanced communism


Nobody can appropriate the means of production when you kill everyone. Communism achieved!

I reccomend you read a book on how shitty a neo peasants life is under capitalism and Marx or just any old engineer on how exploiting labor like that isn't even necessary anymore.
I suggest liberals like you realize your moralizing isn't going to work and if you don't want to see more Pol Pots you'd better start come concerning yourself with peasant struggle.

Nice strawman, but work on your spelling.

I know exploitation of labor isn't necessary. I am for collective ownership of the means of production. I for equitable redistribution of wealth. I am against capitalist hierarchy. You know, the actual anarchist/socialist positions.

Being against the exploitation of workers doesn't mean being for authoritarianism and mass murder. By supporting sadistic authoritarians like Pol Pot, you are actually undermining the socialist cause.